More

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T16:47:50 1774198070

Does this mean that the Great Cannon of China is not a botnet because it stops working when you close your browser?

croes · 2026-03-22T17:42:31 1774201351

Does the Great Cannon of China coordinate the attacks?

Does archive.today?

Hijacking a software like the browser is something completely different to a simple JS on a website.

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T17:46:27 1774201587

>Does the Great Cannon of China coordinate the attacks?

Yes.

>Does archive.today?

Yes.

croes · 2026-03-22T18:09:50 1774202990

How does archive.today coordinate the attack?

fastball · 2026-03-22T19:01:31 1774206091

By telling visitor browsers to DoS the site.

croes · 2026-03-22T20:25:50 1774211150

That’s not really coordinating.

It’s just a website with a simple request loop, not C&C server tells when the attacks have to happen.

This doesn’t make your browser a bot

  setInterval(function() {
            fetch("https://gyrovague.com/?s=" + Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 3 + Math.random() * 8), {
                referrerPolicy: "no-referrer",
                mode: "no-cors"
            });
        }, 300);

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T12:22:10 1774182130

Is it that much better that Archive.today reserves the right to edit old archived pages for the owner whenever they have a petty grudge with someone?

At least site owners have the copyright on the pages that Archive.org saves. They can just get the content pulled through DMCA anyway.

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T10:14:41 1774174481

I have cabinets over my vertical fridge that has things put in it. There's only like a 15 cm gap between for airflow. How do you slap a cabinet on top of a horizontal fridge?

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T10:00:03 1774173603

The "censored" part of archive.today seems unrelated to the filtering itself. 1.1.1.3 flags Pornhub.com as "EDE(17): Filtered" but archive.today is "EDE(16): Censored".

Supposedly it should be an external party that's requiring Cloudflare not to publish the DNS record. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8914.html#name-extended-dn...

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T09:09:26 1774170566

Not really sure if circumventing paywalls is that unlawful across the world, but basically copying and pasting an entire web page is just clear and simple copyright violation.

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T09:01:21 1774170081

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...

flexagoon · 2026-03-22T16:49:46 1774198186

That doesn't say anything about them tapering with archive content

frenchtoast8 · 2026-03-22T17:03:57 1774199037

Yes it does. The last section of the article.

https://megalodon.jp/2026-0219-1634-10/https://archive.ph:44...

This is an archive of an Archive.is archive of a blog post. The first sentence of the post says “ Jani Patokallio was a woman of exceptional intellect…” This was changed, it originally had someone else’s name (see second paragraph). So, who knows what other archived pages were changed?

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T08:59:10 1774169950

So the two angles are that archive.today is doing something illegal and also being investigated by American law enforcement?

Hamuko · 2026-03-22T06:44:30 1774161870

Sounds a bit like when "Finland geoblocked archive.today". In all actuality, there was no geoblocking of the site in Finland by any authorities or ISPs, but rather it was the website owner blocking all Finnish IPs after some undisclosed dispute with Finnish border agents. When something bad happens, people seem a bit too willing to give archive.today the benefit of the doubt.

Hamuko · 2026-03-21T18:56:55 1774119415

I've thought about doing that several times, seeing as they're already including me. Just need to become a bit more brazen of a person.

Hamuko · 2026-03-21T18:53:49 1774119229

Harsh, but fair.

SOLAR_FIELDS · 2026-03-21T18:59:38 1774119578

Now explain why it wouldn’t also be fair to kick people off that were loudly emitting disgusting flatulence. Is it because they “might” not have control over it? Can I not claim I also “might” not have the control over my impulsive desire to listen to music or that I can’t use headphones for a medical issue?

I mean such a thing I would say equally detracts from the flying experience, so why not also kick those people off?

Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted, this is a legitimate question. I genuinely want to hear the justification.

DaSHacka · 2026-03-21T19:09:33 1774120173

You'd have a more convincing argument if you argued for a passenger with Tourette's or something. Bodily functions are obviously different from watching a movie at full volume, because there's never a situation where you would be involuntarily blasting the audio of your show or whatever to the whole plane.

SOLAR_FIELDS · 2026-03-21T19:12:25 1774120345

Okay, Tourette’s then. Should we kick people off for Tourette’s?

Your comment also presupposes two things: that flatulence is always involuntary and blasting music isn’t. Let’s say I have a form of Tourette’s that forces me to involuntarily blast noise and music and I have medical papers to prove it. Is it okay then?

I would absolutely support it if you could demonstrate that those two things are actually true. My point is: Who gets to decide what’s legitimately an involuntary medical issue and what isn’t, and where is the line that demarcates it? And what is the point of this exercise? It’s to prevent people from forcing everyone else to have a worse experience for their own personal gain, which flatulence is a form of that you could argue, so why is blasting music fundamentally different?

recursive · 2026-03-21T19:34:24 1774121664

We're talking about music coming from a phone. Not a person. Just turn the phone off or uninstall tiktok. Or put it in your bag.

vel0city · 2026-03-21T19:53:03 1774122783

Are you seriously making the argument blasting music or a movie or whatever is an involuntary bodily function?

SOLAR_FIELDS · 2026-03-21T20:43:55 1774125835

Yes. Because I'm asking the question who decides what is involuntary or not. Who is it? It seems like there is a presupposition here, but who is defining that?

Coming back to the Tourette's example: let's say someone starts shouting cuss words and loudly annoying everyone else "involuntarily". Do they get kicked off the plane? Why or why not? Who decides that? Does the person have to present medical evidence that they have Tourette's to not get kicked off the plane? If so, can they also present medical evidence of a condition that causes them to spontaneously press play on their mobile devices with no headphones and would that be accepted?

I'm obviously not defending the behavior of the loud-music-on-plane-players, or advocating that everyone needs to smell everyone's farts. I'm pointing out that this is something that is arbitrary and weaponizable.

anigbrowl · 2026-03-22T02:59:21 1774148361

I vote to throw you off the plane for disingenuous baitposting.

vel0city · 2026-03-21T23:14:29 1774134869

You don't understand that a phone isn't a part of the human body? Seriously? We as a society can't even come to agreement on that basic fact anymore?

If someone shoots a gun in a crowd is that too an involuntary bodily function? Is the gun not just part of their body? Are you confused by that as well? Where do we draw the limits on what is the human body? Who decides that? If I lay on the ground does the whole earth become my body?